One of the first items in the list of Departments dealt with in the Appropriation Bill is the premier Department of Government, that of the Taoiseach, and it is relevant under this heading to raise the general question of leadership in this country at the present time. Part of the national malaise is lack of leadership. Lemass, thou shouldst be living at this hour, Ireland hath need of thee!
Senator Lanigan referred to a lack of political will as part of the explanation that lies behind our economic and other difficulties and I would agree to a certain extent with this. But I do not think people by themselves can articulate a political will, they have to have leadership in that direction, and I think we lack any overall vision of where we are going or any leadership which would make us strive towards that vision. Paradoxically, the strongest Taoiseach in the history of the State is arguably the weakest, certainly in the history of single party Governments. An old Cork friend of mine used to say very profoundly, and this was in the days long before the 84 seats, "the strength of Jack Lynch is the weakness of the nation." Perhaps this weakness comes from the Taoiseach's being a kind of amiable reflection of a woolly Fianna Fáil consensus, indeed a woolly national consensus, rather than the shaper of his own consensus as he should be.
In recent weeks one hears from those who accompanied him on his European tour that he performed very well indeed. He is to be congratulated on refusing to accept unfavourable terms for EMS entry and must be complimented on a remarkable display of energy, enthusiasm and commitment, qualities which he usually reserves for analysing the composition of Cork hurling teams. Let us hope that this new found dynamism will be evident in the leadership of the nation at home. Whatever the outcome of the EMS or whatever decisions are taken, I think he will probably remember the experience of recent weeks. He might take a lesson from President Giscard D'Estaing's rebuff similar to the moral drawn by John Mitchel in 1848 when the second French republic disappointed the hopes of Irish nationalists. "I thank M. Lamar-tine", said Mitchel, "for letting us know that in the end we must rely on ourselves".
I take it that Northern Ireland, in so far as North-South relations are concerned, also comes under the heading of the Appropriation Bill, both in the Department of the Taoiseach and that of Foreign Affairs. It has been a non-year as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, what the Americans call a no wind situation. That is, of course, partly the result of Westminster politics but let us remind ourselves that we have a Government which has no policy on Northern Ireland. I have said on more than one occasion that repetitions of vague aspirations about wanting Irish unity by peaceful means are meaningless or at best merely negative preconditions. Who but a lunatic would wish for Irish unity by other than peaceful means?
To ask Britain to declare her interest in a united Ireland against the express will of a million Ulster people is a cheap and insincere if not reckless gesture, since it is not accompanied by any articulation of what shape a united Ireland might have, any real attempt to create an attractive and just society in the south, any intent to change a confessional Constitution, any real accommodation of historic Ulster Protestant fear, any move to dismantle the Catholic State. In all this the Government might well take note of a recent editorial in The Church of Ireland Gazette which was quoted in The Irish Times on 9 December. The editorial encouraged northern Protestants to debate the implications of unity now but castigated southern politicians for never having actually presented a form of all-Ireland Government which would give the northern Protestant the security he desires. The editorial goes on:
So far the Northern Protestant is being asked to give up what degree of self determination he has without any future relationship in an all-Ireland context being spelt out. Why are the Republic's politicians so reluctant to discuss the possibility of establishing some form of power sharing in a future all Ireland State? Indeed, the political negativism of Southern politicians on the unity issue seems to suggest that they have no constructive policy to offer but ultimately could not reject national unity even if it came as the fruit of the evil work of the Provisional IRA.
I think that hits off the position fairly accurately. In this morning's newspapers there is a report of the Taoiseach's comments yesterday in the Dáil on Northern Ireland in which he speaks of the stability which could flow from an agreed settlement which would be of immense benefit not only to the people of Northern Ireland but to this part of Ireland and to the United Kingdom. Indeed, nobody could disagree with that. Then he says the advantages of a solution achieved following reconciliation of all the different interests involved and based upon agreed political structures are becoming increasingly recognised. But the point surely is, as The Church of Ireland Gazette editorial suggests, that the agreed structures should be sketched out here and now and not await some far off day when a whole lot of unlikely people are going to get around a particular table.
Our intelligence is further insulted by some Fianna Fáil spokesmen who have lately been suggesting that common north-south membership of a directly elected European assembly will somehow help to bring about rapprochement. That is superficial and wishful thinking, as wishful as the vague hopes expressed during the referendum in 1972 that membership of the Community itself would bring about a closer harmony between north and south.
On the Department of Education figures, I do not wish to go over the same ground covered recently here when the Minister, Deputy Wilson brought in an amending Bill on higher education grants, except to say that I by no means support all student causes, but it seems to me that they have an incontrovertible case at the moment when they spotlight the injustice being done to students of the regional technical colleges and the fact that equality of educational opportunity is not being applied in their case. The Government might take note that students' claims in recent months, especially their opposition to any increase in university fees, are being supported by the Higher Education Authority. It is a pretty rare occasion when such a body finds itself in agreement with what the students are saying. Both the students and the HEA are saying that the thinking in the Green Paper on education is reactionary.
I would also like to deal in the future with a neglected area in education namely, adult education, but no doubt a suitable opportunity will arise. We are going to hear more about this from now on.
Now, I want to dwell on one particular implication of public grants for third level institutions. One way in which the State could demonstrate that it has separated itself from denominational involvement, and thus help in creating a more acceptable southern face to the north, would be to grasp the Maynooth nettle firmly and quickly. This should be done even if Northern Ireland never existed. As a pontifical university, and a national seminary for the training of Catholic priests, Maynooth has had an important part in the history of the country. Considered from these aspects, pontifical university or national seminary, what Maynooth does is its own business, and certainly no business of the State. Unfortunately, these aspects are related in a confused and anomalous way to the role of Maynooth as a recognised college of the National University of Ireland. Considered as a recognised college, Maynooth is funded in large part from the public purse, and therefore it should be amenable in the last analysis to public accountability and control. Its appointments procedures should conform to the academic criteria in operation elsewhere in the country and abroad. People deemed suitable for appointment on academic grounds should not have to face a further test based on such nonacademic criteria as religious beliefs, religious commitments, personal lifestyle or even sartorial habits. Yet, as we all know, a body not accountable to public control, to wit the Roman Hierarchy or their trustees, has refused to sanction the appointment of academics on nonacademic grounds. It is intolerable either in terms of academic justice or plain democracy that State funds should continue to be given to a recognised college in these circumstances. The Government should give immediate notice to the Catholic bishops that they must stop meddling in the affairs of a third-level institution funded from the public purse.
On the Estimate for Foreign Affairs I wish to express the concern of many people about reports of a recent vote of the Irish delegation at the United Nations. You, a Chathaoirleach, ruled this out of order as being unsuitable for the adjournment recently and I welcome this opportunity to discuss it as a matter of policy. According to The Irish Times, 29 November, the United Nations General Assembly's main political committee adopted a resolution declaring that the use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the United Nations charter and a crime against humanity and it called for the prohibition of such weapons pending nuclear disarmament. Ireland and the eight other EEC members together with the United States and six other countries voted against the resolution which was carried by 84 votes to 16. The Department of Foreign Affairs has not denied the truth of the report that the Irish delegation voted against the resolution, nor has the Department offered any explanation.
The question arises: why is a country with a past like ours voting in a way which is tantamount to approving of nuclear war? My own reaction to the report was one of shocked incredulity. No matter what tactical reasons may be adduced for the attitude of our delegation, the scandalous fact remains that they voted against nuclear disarmament. This vote is not only in conflict with the Taoiseach's firm statements on the matter but with former Minister Frank Aiken's long and honourable struggle to promote nuclear disarmament. This vote represents a volte face on a cardinal principle of an historic foreign policy which was the guiding principle of Fianna Fáil political philosophy in relation to the outside world. Or is the vote really a volte face, in view of a similar irresponsible attitude on the part of our diplomats a year ago at Belgrade in opposing a disarmament resolution proposed by non-aligned states such as Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia? We must ask ourselves if we have here another phase in the insensible drift away from neutrality—the abandonment of our neutrality by stealth. By neutrality, I do not simply mean a negative stance like nonmembership of NATO, but the development of a constructive policy and of our relations with non-aligned states, in the interest of a contribution to world peace. Does the fact that we voted the same way as the other eight Community states mean that our foreign policy is now being dictated by the ex-colonial powers of Europe, that we are now a step nearer to the “one-voice” foreign policy of which Senator Brugha has expressed himself in favour, but which is totally against the interests of this country?
During the year the Minister for Foreign Affairs seemed to be saying rather contradictory things which would indicate that there is some confusion in Iveagh House about our position in international affairs. In an interview on the television programme "Féach", the Minister expressed himself as very much in favour of the de Valera—Aiken tradition of Irish neutrality. Yet in a subsequent modification he said that we would have to go to the aid of our European partners if any of them was attacked, whatever that may mean. One can only conclude that there is a certain ambivalence of attitude here in respect of our basic position in international affairs. Eternal vigilance is called for here by concerned members of the public.
There are other straws in the wind which would indicate that there is taking place an insensible shift in the whole direction of our foreign policy. In 1976 we abstained at the United Nations on a resolution calling for an arms embargo on South Africa—an action which has been attributed to EEC pressure, as Patrick Keating notes in his book "A Place Among the Nations: Issues in Irish Foreign Policy". He also says "since 1968, the single mindedness of achievement associated with Irish involvement in disarmament has become less apparent." He adduces various reasons for this but concludes that "Ireland's membership of the European Community from 1973 posed the question whether Irish policy on disarmament, as on other issues relating to the international milieu, was being dissipated in Community consultations and submerged by a common Community policy." In the light of these developments, Irish people generally should be aroused to a recognition of what may well be the betrayal of our honourable and anti-imperialist tradition.
